[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [Survey || RFC] autotools-utils.eclass
From:       Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm () gmail ! com>
Date:       2010-05-31 13:29:01
Message-ID: 201005311529.02461.reavertm () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 26 of May 2010 19:27:43 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 May 2010 05:38:00 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> > I've updated documentation, added example usage and option to keep
> > libtool files (ltdl.so supposedly needs those as I was told, no idea
> > what for).
> 
> more applicable to us w/Linux is that static linking with libtool needs
> them. the AUTOTOOLS_KEEP_LA_FILES seems kind of spurious considering
> current tree behavior and assumption of gnu-capable linking systems.

It is spurious when we forget about run-time dynamic linking (plugins) in some 
apps.
libtool loader (ltdl.so) needs .la files unfortunately. One example - 
imagemagick - removing .la files for coders makes 'convert' unable to locate 
them (silly, but hey...).
Using autotools-utils for such packages would mean:
- either not having static-libs in IUSE - barely acceptable
- or having static-libs in IUSE but overriding all autotools-utils provided 
phases that make some actions depending on that USE flag - barely convenient

(or not using this eclass, but like I said - I'd prefer it was able to 
obsolete all other autotools related eclasses - for ebuild API unification 
purpose - in such case it would be adopted by base-system@ most likely - hmm 
but then I'd need to add '<'EAPI-2 support, and it means src_unpack which I 
want to avoid)

Since .la files aren't unfortunately exclusively related to static libs, I 
think it's better to have a simple option to keep .la files and be able to 
produce static libs in straightforward way even when this option for most 
cases would be simply redundant.

-- 
regards
MM

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]